DAMAGE TO CAR.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 154, 1 July 1940, Page 3

DAMAGE TO CAR.

PARKING LIABILITY.

APPEAL AGAINST NONSUIT.

DECISION ERRONEOUS.

Liability of a pereon who undertakes the private parking of motor care for shelter was involved in an appeal heard before Mr. Justice Fair in the Supreme Court to-day.

The appeal was made by J. R. C. Don, civil servant (Mr. Goldstine) against a decision by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., nonsuiting him in a claim in the Magistrate's Court against Schofield and Company for damages. The admitted facts were that on June 12 appellant parked his car in the care of Schofield and Company (Mr. Munro) in an area at the Civic Square, and that, in the course of that day, when the car was being driven by an employee of Sehofield and Company, it collided with another car at the intersection of Albert and Swanson Streets, the amount of damage being assessed at £25 4/5. Appellant proceeded against respondent in the Lower Court for damages, claiming that the relationship between the parties was that of bailor and bailee, whereby the respondent would be liable for damages. For respondent it was claimed that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, whereby respondent was not liable. The magistrate said he did not think there, was a bailment, and nonsuited plaintiff with costs.

In reply to his Honor, counsel agreed that the car had been purchased from respondent and that part of the contract was that in the daytime it ehould be housed in respondent's, showroom whenever there was space available, and kept in showroom condition pending completion of a garage on appellant's property. After having heard legal argument, hie Honor held that when the respondent's employee entered the car to drive it into respondent's garage v the act gave possession of the car to Schofield and Company as bailee. Consequently, the appeal against the nonsuit would be upheld on the ground that the magistrate's decision was erroneous. The case wae therefore remitted to the magistrate for rehearing. Coets were allowed appellant.